Agency Education Department

Contractor University of Minnesota Center for Early Education and Development (CEED)

SWIFT Contract Number 227836

Project Name Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIP) Revision

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: To revise Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIP) to align to early childhood research, review and modify advised by community experts, and to translate documents.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 04/25/2023 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 06/30/2023 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 11/30/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $250000.00

Amendments $49862.22

Contract total $299862.22

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? federal and state funding was used

Is this a sole source contract? No

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) {Empty}

Evaluator Name Lucy Arias

Evaluator Email Address Lucy.Arias@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness reasonable

Evaluate the contractor's quality reasonable

Evaluate the contractor's cost reasonable

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance While key deliverables were ultimately met, the project experienced an initial delay in the work due to staff capacity issues on CEED's end. A significant concern arose during the community review of the language translations. Two out of the three translated documents were deemed unusable, requiring further action to address the quality shortfall.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): One notable negative action during this contract involved the unacceptable quality of the translated materials. Following the community review, it became apparent that two of the three translated documents were entirely unusable due to significant inaccuracies and errors. This directly impacted our ability to utilize these deliverables as intended. As a result of the unsatisfactory quality, we were unable to pay for these specific translated materials, leading to a reduction in the overall payment to CEED. Furthermore, the delay in receiving usable translations and the subsequent need to address this issue necessitated a request for a variation to billing. This adjustment was crucial to ensure that federal funds allocated for this project were spent within the designated timeframe, despite the setbacks caused by the translation quality. This situation required additional administrative effort and time to resolve, impacting project efficiency.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral